1. Started in the heart of world capitalism — Wall Street of USA. The main slogan was “Occupy Wall Street”.

2. Three major issues: Corruption, Inequality and Unemployment. Perhaps another major issue is bailing out the corrupt MNCs and reducing social consumption of the poor!

3. No permanent party or organisation led this movement. It was a self organised revolt. The major mechanism of this self organisation was a spontaneous network of individuals all over the world around a single common popular issue or slogan, a revolt where everybody is a leader.

4. Special features: Not like previous anti-capitalist revolutions springing in the so-called weak link and organised by a strong regimented vanguard followed by the masses. It is a movement of the people, for the people and by the people in the most literal sense. It is a movement of a BLOC OF LIKEMINDED people.

5. It would not have been possible without the infrastructural support of website, Facebook, Micro-blog, Twitter, etc.

6. The main weakness of such movements is their “Negative” character. It is a protest against capitalism and various individuals from various angles have assembled to show their anger and protest. But they do not have any long term programme or the protesters do not know with what system they will replace capitalism. It is spontaneous and unplanned so any strong group within the movement can take control of it and steer it to an undesirable end! That could hurtle them further backward into anarchy.

7. The protest was against the symbol of finance capital in USA i.e. Wall Street. The protest actually started one month ago, on Sep 17, when around 200 protestors took position in tents at a park near Wall Street. Police had announced beforehand that they must leave the place by last Friday i.e. Oct 14. But they didn’t. And the administration backed out! So this small victory fuelled the movement further. More so because millions of protestors have supported this movement on the same day i.e. Oct 15 in 951 cities.

8. The main slogan was “Occupy Wall Street”. That clearly meant not just the narrow issues but also challenging the system or power. Thus the slogan was “Occupuy Tokyo”, “Occupy London”, “Occupy Rome” “Occupy Madrid”, etc.

9. The disadvantaged groups like adivasis, women, gays, blacks, peace veterans, all had joined. The middle-class and lower middle-classes also joined. In addition the honest and discontented section of the ruling class also joined in e.g. in Sydney the Business Union members joined the protest, in Taiwan their top businessmen, including chairman of the semi-conductor manufacturing association had joined. Many intellectuals and media personalities joined in too.

10. www.15october.net issued that call and caught the imagination of all! Three things were written in the original call — First, enough is enough. It is time to rise. Rise up without violence, rise up against the powerful. The powerful works for vested interest, an insignificant minority and disobeys the will of majority. Establish true democracy and your right.

11. The only two positive slogans: Empowerment of people and True Democracy.

12. If a limit crosses then the most democratic state becomes autocratic. The example is the attack on Occupy Boston procession. At 1:30 this morning hundreds of policemen in full riot gear brutally attacked Occupy Boston, which had peacefully gathered on the Rose Kennedy Greenway. The Boston Police Department made no distinction between protesters, medics, or legal observers, arresting legal observer Ursula Levelt, who serves on the steering committee for the National Lawyers Guild, as well as four medics attempting to care for the injured. Earlier in the day, an estimated 10,000 union members, students, veterans, families, men, and women of all ages marched from the Boston Common to Dewey Square, and then to the North Washington Bridge to demand economic reform on Wall Street and the end of special interest influence in Washington. Following this massive outpouring of public support, dozens of police vans descended on the Greenway, with batons drawn, assaulting protesters and arresting more than one-hundred people. Members of Veterans for Peace carrying American flags were pushed to the ground and their flags trampled upon as the police hauled them away. Boston police said no protesters or police were injured in the manoeuvre. “Civil disobedience will not be tolerated,” Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the local Fox 25 News in Boston on Tuesday morning.

13. But oppression cannot stop it this time. New action programmes are coming up: In New York, a section of Occupy Wall Street protesters is planning a “millionaire’s march” to wealthy Manhattan homes. The action is being planned by UnitedNY, the Strong Economy for All Coalition, the Working Families Party, and New York Communities for Change, all of whom helped swell the largest Occupy Wall Street march so far last Wednesday. The march will set off at 12.30pm, and reportedly the homes will include that of Rupert Murdoch according to the press release.

14. Now the network can also use technology to post video films of oppression and thus build up belief, trust emotion, etc. even when major media outlets are screening their news content. In the media war network plays a more progressive, democratic and eye-opening role.

15. Background of USA protest — big banks had trillion dollars worth of liabilities but not as much asset. So they were becoming bankrupt. State came to support them. State deficit rose to become $14 trillion this year. Obama pledged to cut deficit by $4 trillion every year. This means cutting education, health and social insurance expenditure hurting the poor.

16. This movement is not funded by any corporation or government.

17. Perhaps it is a new Post Modern revolutionary movement. Perhaps a new New Epoch has started against any form of undemocratic power.

——————————————————-M. M. Akash is a professor, economist and researcher.

Rural villagers queue with their ledger books to repay loans to a micro-credit group in northern Lalmonirhat, Bangladesh. Photo: Reuters

1. I shall begin with an old saying: “If a drop of water falls on a lake, it loses identity, if it falls on lotus it shines, if on a shell it becomes a pearl. The drop is same but company matters.”

2. Microcredit is neither a panacea nor a devil; it all depends on the context! Taken simply, “Microcredit” is a very old thing — it is a micro sized credit. So it must be financing at least initially only micro activity satisfying micro needs. But human nature is such that as soon as a micro activity and/or micro need is fulfilled he/she will aspire for a larger credit and will try to fulfil richer human needs. The question of graduation from micro to macro is an inherent necessity attached to each microcredit borrower. A constant vulnerability is another essential problem of the microcredit borrower.

3. There is therefore an important failure or limitation of microcredit — it ensures only limited mobility and that mobility is generally non sustainable.

4. The supporters of microcredit claim that micro-macro graduation is possible by reinvestment of the surplus by the micro borrowers. The savings of poor borrowers and interest paid, savings accumulated, etc. actually prove that they do generate surplus.

5. And here lies the bone of contention. It is beyond doubt that the ability to move upward will depend upon how effectively the surplus is used to generate additional income and how that additional income is distributed. This obviously will depend on how the surplus is distributed as well as on the internal capacity of the micro borrower and the external constraints within which he/she has to operate.

6. One school of economists claim that MC manager/social entrepreneurs have taken away the lion’s share of the surplus, enjoying high income, fame and luxury and also maintaining status quo or managing poverty to ensure political stability. At least they fail to stop the increasing relative gap between rich and poor based on unjustified distribution of surplus/income.

7. Another school claims the MC entrepreneurs have saved the poor from further deterioration, from the clutches of the so-called bloodsucker Mohajons. It not only prevented deterioration and maintained status quo, but also increased their income, smoothened their consumption, increased their social capital, human capital, physical capital, and finally made it possible for them to graduate above poverty line. This debate has to be solved on the basis of objective facts.

8. Even if somebody accepts the above positive claims, the question remains “How Much” and more importantly “How much more can be done by proper institutional changes and through proper regulation of the micro credit entrepreneurs.” Then only one begins a proper search for a more effective model of microcredit!

9. Indian model of self help group is naturally the most preferred model for the poor if a minimum management capacity exists among the poor members of the group and also if external political intervention can be checked.. And that is better because by that they become the subject of their life and no more remain a target object in need of so called safety nets! It is ideally a self-owned, self-managed and self-appropriated collective model of “Micro Credit”.

10. NGO models and GB model of micro-credit in our country deals with the micro man but they have generally failed to turn him/her into an independent macro/meso subject. Perhaps the degree of failure in case of GB model is lesser because at least it has legally given De jure ownership of the bank to the micro man!